Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2011, 03:28 PM
 
10,629 posts, read 26,660,945 times
Reputation: 6776

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster View Post
granted middle class lifestyle does not have the same meaning for everyone but a family of 4 liviing in a 2 bedroom apartment and not being able to afford a car is not a middle class lifestyle by my standards.
sorry but that's my opinion.
Yes, but do you live in exurbia somewhere? Unless the OP specifically says that she's seeking the suburban dream, why assume that her definition of middle-class is the classic suburban model? Maybe it is, but she didn't say (unless I missed it) that it was, and she seemed open to living without a car. The nice thing about San Francisco is that you don't have to have a car. And -- amazingly! -- some people are fine with that. And kids sharing a bedroom isn't exactly slumming it. In fact, many children PREFER it that way.

I think $75k would be tight, but it's certainly not anywhere near poverty level. FWIW, I think it would be much tougher to live on that income if both parents worked. I'm basing my views on the idea that the $75k is from one parent, while the other parent stays home with the kids. I think it would be incredibly difficult to live comfortably in SF on $75k if you also had to pay childcare from that pot of money. It's not so bad as a SAHM, though.

I fully realize that not everyone wants to make the sacrifices to live in the city, but not everyone's priorities fit into the same mold. For us, it was preferable to live in a smaller apartment in the Richmond and be able to walk to Golden Gate Park and to Ocean Beach, and to be able to take full advantage of the many cultural amenities available in the city. I also love the flexibility of being able to live our lives without dealing with a car -- for me, owning a car is like throwing money down the drain. I'd rather put that money towards something more meaningful.

To the OP: if city living isn't your cup of tea, you could find a nice, family-friendly 2-BR apartment somewhere like Alameda. You'd probably have to keep a car, but your husband could commute to work via ferry, and your overall costs would still be doable with your income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2011, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,754,073 times
Reputation: 28561
Living in Alameda, the best way to commute to SF is AC transit's Transbay buses. The Ferry stops are in crappy locations not served well by transit, so you need to drive to the Ferry. The bus ride (depending where you live on the island) can range from about 15-30 minutes. And will likely stop very close to your house. I lived in Alameda and took the W. Then the bus ride was 12 minutes (not a joke!) it is a little longer now as they added the s-curve to the bridge, but it is still in the neighborhood of 15 minutes. You can also take casual carpool, and go for free or cheap ($1 each way) in the AM and take the bus home. So all in all, your commute would be shorter than one from the Richmond district.

Alameda is a pretty small place, so you can easily walk or bike to almost anywhere on the island. Living between Park St and South Shore would give you the best access via the shortest walk to all most amenities of Alameda: Safeway, Trader Joes, Kohls and all of the independent stores on Park St. (For the record, I was carless when I lived in Alameda, I survived just fine. The most frequent bus, the 51, was about a 5 block walk from my place, and that bus goes to BART, downtown Oakland, Berkeley, and virtually everywhere I needed to go.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2011, 05:08 PM
 
3,098 posts, read 3,771,365 times
Reputation: 2580
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
Yes, but do you live in exurbia somewhere? Unless the OP specifically says that she's seeking the suburban dream, why assume that her definition of middle-class is the classic suburban model? Maybe it is, but she didn't say (unless I missed it) that it was, and she seemed open to living without a car. The nice thing about San Francisco is that you don't have to have a car. And -- amazingly! -- some people are fine with that. And kids sharing a bedroom isn't exactly slumming it. In fact, many children PREFER it that way.

I think $75k would be tight, but it's certainly not anywhere near poverty level. FWIW, I think it would be much tougher to live on that income if both parents worked. I'm basing my views on the idea that the $75k is from one parent, while the other parent stays home with the kids. I think it would be incredibly difficult to live comfortably in SF on $75k if you also had to pay childcare from that pot of money. It's not so bad as a SAHM, though.

I fully realize that not everyone wants to make the sacrifices to live in the city, but not everyone's priorities fit into the same mold. For us, it was preferable to live in a smaller apartment in the Richmond and be able to walk to Golden Gate Park and to Ocean Beach, and to be able to take full advantage of the many cultural amenities available in the city. I also love the flexibility of being able to live our lives without dealing with a car -- for me, owning a car is like throwing money down the drain. I'd rather put that money towards something more meaningful.

To the OP: if city living isn't your cup of tea, you could find a nice, family-friendly 2-BR apartment somewhere like Alameda. You'd probably have to keep a car, but your husband could commute to work via ferry, and your overall costs would still be doable with your income.
the trappings of middle class life don't change depending on where you live you just need to make more money to have them depending on where you live.a family of four in a 2 bedroom apartment unable to afford a car in fresno or nashville is not living a different lifestyle than a family of four living the same way in san francisco.
personally i don't see much point in living in a city with world class symphony,restaurants ,opera ,ballet ,theatre, sailng ,access to skiing/snowboarding if you can't afford to take "full advantage" of these cultural amenities.


and I think there is a big difference between choosing to live in a 2 bedroom and having to live in a 2 bedroom


this is choosing
rent $4950
Remodeled 2 bedroom 1 bath - Great Location ~ JWavro (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2740710796.html - broken link)
and this rent $7200
Incredible Corner unit w/spectacular views! ~ JWavro (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2741081614.html - broken link)


i don't think living in a city were OTHER people can afford to partake in the cultural amenities makes it better than living in nashville or fresno.
if gary danko and coi are in your city but you can't afford to go I don't see the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2011, 05:45 PM
 
10,629 posts, read 26,660,945 times
Reputation: 6776
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster View Post
the trappings of middle class life don't change depending on where you live you just need to make more money to have them depending on where you live.a family of four in a 2 bedroom apartment unable to afford a car in fresno or nashville is not living a different lifestyle than a family of four living the same way in san francisco.
personally i don't see much point in living in a city with world class symphony,restaurants ,opera ,ballet ,theatre, sailng ,access to skiing/snowboarding if you can't afford to take "full advantage" of these cultural amenities.


and I think there is a big difference between choosing to live in a 2 bedroom and having to live in a 2 bedroom


this is choosing
rent $4950
Remodeled 2 bedroom 1 bath - Great Location ~ JWavro (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2740710796.html - broken link)
and this rent $7200
Incredible Corner unit w/spectacular views! ~ JWavro (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2741081614.html - broken link)


i don't think living in a city were OTHER people can afford to partake in the cultural amenities makes it better than living in nashville or fresno.
if gary danko and coi are in your city but you can't afford to go I don't see the point.
A couple of questions: have you ever lived in San Francisco? Have you lived there with kids? Do you think that a family living in Manhattan and who doesn't own a car is therefore not middle class? I don't buy the argument that middle-class trappings are defined the same everywhere. That said, I fully realize that many people don't want to make any sacrifices to live in the city, and that's a perfectly valid choice. But there's a vast difference between living without a car in San Francisco and many other cities, which is part of the reason we were willing to pay a bit more to live there rather than outside of the city.

To jade408, didn't know the bus was that fast. We gave serious consideration to Alameda (to the OP: GREAT place! Very affordable by local standards, and very family-friendly) but ultimately are concerned that we'd feel too isolated. I'm torn on whether or not "island living" would be comfortably small, or too isolated. My impression for the OP (if she thinks about living there, and please correct this if it's wrong) is that when looking for Alameda rentals it's best to look beyond Craigslist, as some of the local realtors seem to have the lock on the good rentals, especially if hoping to rent a house or duplex and not in one of the modern apartment complexes (although those look just fine, too, and are pretty affordable). Alameda has a parents group, too, which seems to be quite active. I think you could probably comfortably live there on your salary, especially if you are willing to go without a car. (or if you end up both working.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2011, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,754,073 times
Reputation: 28561
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post

To jade408, didn't know the bus was that fast. We gave serious consideration to Alameda (to the OP: GREAT place! Very affordable by local standards, and very family-friendly) but ultimately are concerned that we'd feel too isolated. I'm torn on whether or not "island living" would be comfortably small, or too isolated. My impression for the OP (if she thinks about living there, and please correct this if it's wrong) is that when looking for Alameda rentals it's best to look beyond Craigslist, as some of the local realtors seem to have the lock on the good rentals, especially if hoping to rent a house or duplex and not in one of the modern apartment complexes (although those look just fine, too, and are pretty affordable). Alameda has a parents group, too, which seems to be quite active. I think you could probably comfortably live there on your salary, especially if you are willing to go without a car. (or if you end up both working.)
I really like Alameda. IT feels small town, but in reality it only takes 10 minutes to get into a bigger city (or less). It is pretty convenient. Personally, I don't need to be in the "city" if it is easy access. Alameda is. And there are enough good restaurants/etc to get by without having to leave too often. Alameda is probably #4 in the East Bay for restaurant after Berkeley, Oakland, and Walnut Creek. For the overall Bay Area, it would be pretty high on the, definitely in the top 20%.

FYI: when I lived in Alameda, I lived in Ballena Village. Great complex: they had basketball courts, tennis courts, a pool, a gym, full-service office and it wasn't too ridiculously priced. It is around the corner from the yacht club.

For reference, the transbay buses basically pick up passengers, then hop on the freeway to sf. As one of my coworkers put it: it takes the exact route I would takem except it goes in the carpool lane! And I don't need to drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2011, 10:47 PM
 
Location: South Korea
5,242 posts, read 13,044,398 times
Reputation: 2957
It always amazes me how many chicken little people this site attracts who think you have to be a millionaire just to be able to eat in SF, and that everyone in every city on the entire planet is supposed to have the same lifestyle as someone living somewhere like suburban Texas. Do they hold other expensive cities to the same standard, like London, Paris, NYC, Tokyo, etc? Not everyone wants to live in a big city and not everyone wants to live in a beige cookie-cutter suburb in the middle of $@#$@% nowhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top